By JOHN RICHARD SCHROCK
The unclassified summary of our five U.S. intelligence agencies (IC) view of the coronavirus origin was released. While this is a science question, not a political one, the report included much that should have ended the political claims that this was a bioweapon.
One function of our consulates is to maintain surveillance on other governments’ communications. This provides the background for the report statement “...the IC assesses China’s officials did not have foreknowledge of the virus before the initial outbreak of COVID-19 emerged.”
“The IC assesses that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, probably emerged and infected humans through an initial small-scale exposure that occurred no later than November 2019 with the first known cluster of COVID-19 cases arising in Wuhan, China in December 2019.”
In addition, “...the IC was able to reach broad agreement on several other key issues. We judge the virus was not developed as a biological weapon.” That sinks the biowarfare gain-in-function argument.
This is not surprising to people throughout Asia who remember that China suffered more casualties from biological warfare atrocities committed by Japan during World War II than all other world countries in history combined. This history, detailed in school books and on China television, makes such biowarfare less likely than Japan developing nuclear bombs today.
Four of the IC elements along with the National Intelligence Council concluded “...that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2.”
Only one IC element felt “...that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” The rationale for this counter opinion is not given, but it speaks of it as a lab accident. That one intelligence agency concurred that it was not a bioweapon.
The August 17, 2021 Bloomberg Businessweek goes back to describe how the Huanan market was closed down back in January 1, 2020 immediately after the recognition of this new disease. Beijing specialists “...ordered environmental samples to be collected from drains and other surfaces at the market. Some 585 specimens were tested, of which 33 turned out to be positive for SARS-CoV-2.... All but two of the positive specimens came from a cavernous and poorly-ventilated section of the market’s western wing, where many shops sold animals.” But which animals were in these sections?
Now a critical study was just published in the June 7, 2021 Scientific Reports that may provide evidence of which animals at the Wuhan animal market could have harbored the wild virus years earlier. It documented “...47,381 individuals from 38 species, including 31 protected species sold between May 2017 and November 2019 in Wuhan’s markets.” This was a study to identify sources of the tick-borne Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (SFTS) disease. As a result, this submitted scientific paper was ignored and not published for over a year since editors did not recognize its importance in correlating the market animals with likely location of the disease transmission.
Research such as this, as well as backtracking of DNA changes in the evolving virus, may eventually answer how this virus jumped from animals to humans.
Meanwhile, many politicians have apparently failed to read the intelligence report and continue to spout conspiracy theories falsely claiming this coronavirus could only be manmade due to unique DNA sequences: “Well that was what Nobel Laureate Dr. Richard Baltimore called the smoking gun that shows this virus came from a lab, not from nature.”
But various politician's screeds indicate they have not read the latest from Dr. David (not Richard) Baltimore: “When I first saw the sequence of the furin cleavage site—as I've said, other beta coronaviruses don't have that site—it seemed to me a reasonable hypothesis that somebody had put it in there. Now, I don't know if that's true or not....”
Earlier assertions that other coronaviruses lack genetic code for certain chemicals (such as the furin cleavage sites) have now been disproved, with several wild coronaviruses having it.
Scientists adjust to new evidence. Politicians do not.
. . .
The short unclassified IC report can be found here.
The text of this short IC report is below.
Key Takeaways
The IC assesses that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, probably emerged and infected humans through an initial small-scale exposure that occurred no later than November 2019 with the first known cluster of COVID-19 cases arising in Wuhan, China in December 2019. In addition, the IC was able to reach broad agreement on several other key issues. We judge the virus was not developed as a biological weapon. Most agencies also assess with low confidence that SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered; however, two agencies believe there was not sufficient evidence to make an assessment either way. Finally, the IC assesses China’s officials did not have foreknowledge of the virus before the initial outbreak of COVID-19 emerged.
After examining all available intelligence reporting and other information, though, the IC remains divided on the most likely origin of COVID-19. All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident.
Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors.
One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses.
Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely.
Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications, and intelligence and scientific gaps.
The IC judges they will be unable to provide a more definitive explanation for the origin of COVID-19 unless new information allows them to determine the specific pathway for initial natural contact with an animal or to determine that a laboratory in Wuhan was handling SARS-CoV-2 or a close progenitor virus before COVID-19 emerged.
The IC—and the global scientific community—lacks clinical samples or a complete understanding of epidemiological data from the earliest COVID-19 cases. If we obtain information on the earliest cases that identified a location of interest or occupational exposure, it may alter our evaluation of hypotheses.
China’s cooperation most likely would be needed to reach a conclusive assessment of the origins of COVID-19. Beijing, however, continues to hinder the global investigation, resist sharing information and blame other countries, including the United States. These actions reflect, in part, China’s government’s own uncertainty about where an investigation could lead as well as its frustration the international community is using the issue to exert political pressure on China.
. . .
John Richard Schrock has trained biology teachers for more than 30 years in Kansas. He also has lectured at 27 universities in 20 trips to China. He holds the distinction of “Faculty Emeritus” at Emporia State University.